## Letter 1.

2/IX 98 [village of Shushenskoye].

I received your letter of 11/VIII yesterday with the list of books and the parcel—*Archiv*. The article by the "outstanding political economist" is extremely interesting and excellently composed. The author obviously had at his disposal the richest material, which he was fortunate enough to obtain. Generally, in the sphere of journalism he turns out to be perhaps even a better writer than in the purely economic sphere. *Archiv*, in general, is an interesting journal, and I shall definitely subscribe to it next year¹).

I should also like to subscribe to some periodic English publication, a journal or newspaper (weekly); can you not advise what would be best to choose. I am completely unfamiliar with what is most interesting in English journalism and accessible in Russia.

Regarding Struve's article, concerning the assessment of which we do not agree, one must of course say that one cannot judge the author's views precisely from that article alone²). It seemed to me, for example, and still seems, that he precisely set himself the task of "general classification" (the very title indicates this), whereas you find that "he certainly did not set himself such a task"...

That "we must wrest our handicraft production from the so-called folk production," with this I am of course entirely and unconditionally in agreement, and it seems to me that this task still stands before our "disciples"³) unresolved. In Struve's article I saw a *plan* for solving this task.

Did you notice in *Russian Wealth* the article by N. G. (in the last two issues) against "materialism and dialectical logic"⁴)? Extremely interesting indeed—on the negative side. I must confess that I am incompetent in the questions raised by the author, and I am extremely puzzled why the author of *Contributions to the History of Materialism*⁵) has not spoken out in Russian literature and does not speak out decisively against neo-Kantianism, leaving the field to Struve and Bulgakov to theorize about particular questions of this philosophy, as though it had already become part of the views of Russian disciples⁶). Surely space could have been found for philosophical articles in more than one of our journals, and a book could have passed freely. His polemic with Bernstein and Konrad Schmidt interests me in the highest degree, and I am extremely sorry that I cannot somehow obtain *Neue Zeit*⁷). I should be greatly indebted to you if you could help me in this. Of course, it would be quite sufficient to receive this journal even for a short time. Do you have that issue of *Neue Zeit* where there was (several years ago) an article by the same author on Hegel (30th anniversary of his death—something of that sort⁸)? *Neue Zeit* is not received by me, nor by any of the comrades here, although they promised to send it from Petersburg! The devil take all these people who promise and assure in vain!

Also interesting in *Russian Wealth* (for July) is a little article by Ratner on *Capital*⁹). What infuriates me most of all are such lovers of the golden mean, who do not dare to come out directly against doctrines they dislike, who equivocate, introduce "corrections," sidestep fundamental points (such as the doctrine of class struggle) and go round and round discussing particulars.

The articles of another author in *Neue Zeit* on social currents in Russia likewise seem to be extremely interesting: you have completely teased me by mentioning them¹⁰).

"And the eye sees, but..."

If I understand you correctly, this author expresses ideas already set forth by him elsewhere (on the danger of *einer politischen Isolierung des russischen Proletariats*¹¹). It seems to me that "alienation from society" does not necessarily at all mean this "isolation,"*) for there is society and society: in waging war against Populism and all its offshoots, the disciples thereby draw closer to those of the *gauches*¹²) who are inclined to *decisively* break with Populism and *consistently* maintain their views. From such people the disciples would hardly become unconditionally aloof. Rather the opposite. A "conciliatory" (or, better, alliancist¹³)) attitude toward such people is quite compatible, in my view, with war against Populism and all its manifestations.

Write. I shake your hand. V. Ulyanov.

*) And that this "isolation" must not be permitted—in this, in my view, the author is entirely and a thousand times right, especially against the *narrow* partisans of "economism."

---

Hmm—yes, if you are already waging war, then even from afar it is frightening: with clubs and such! Fortunately, Eastern Siberia seems to have lagged a little behind Vyatka Province in belligerence¹⁴).

---

¹) *Archiv für sociale Gesetzgebung und Statistik*, edited by Dr. Heinrich Braun. Berlin.—*Archive of Social Legislation and Statistics*, published by Heinrich Braun. The lines of Lenin's letter devoted to this *Archive* allow us to assert that he has in mind the XII volume of this collection, published in 1898. This volume contains an extensive article by an anonymous author under the title: "New Factory Legislation of Russia" (pp. 475–512), devoted to the history and critique of the law of June 2, 1897, and supplied with abundant excerpts from the protocols of government institutions and commissions that worked on the elaboration of this law. The editorial board of the German journal, in a special note to the article, declared that it publishes the article without the author's signature in view of possible unpleasantness for him from the Russian government, while at the same time indicating that the author is "an outstanding political economist, known both in his homeland and abroad." The beginning of this characterization ("outstanding political economist") is quoted in Lenin's letter. D. B. Ryazanov, who at our request specially studied this article and the conditions of its appearance, came to the conclusion that the author was, in all probability, P. B. Struve. The official documents used by the author of the article ("Report on the Work of the State Council and the stenographic report of the commission of January 23, 1897") were published in the same 1898 in Geneva in a pamphlet: "Secret Documents Relating to the Law of June 8, 1897."

Judging by Lenin's letter, A. N. Potresov sent him the *Archive* with the indicated article, perhaps with the thought that Lenin himself had written a special work on the law of June 2, 1897.

Whether Lenin fulfilled his desire to subscribe to *Archiv* for the following year is unknown to us.

²) The reference is to P. Struve's article "The Historical and Systematic Place of Russian Handicraft Industry," published in the journal *Mir Bozhiy* for 1898, no. 4. (Reprinted in the collection of Struve's articles: *On Various Themes*, St. Petersburg, 1902.) Initially, the article, as a report, was delivered at a meeting of the Historical Society at the St. Petersburg University in spring 1898.

³) "Disciples"—i.e., disciples of Marx. This term, originally used by the Populists in an ironic tone, was widely applied in the 1890s in the polemic between Marxists and Populists as a legal, censored designation for Marxists and social-democrats.

⁴) This concerns the article by N. G. "Materialism and Dialectical Logic," published in the Populist journal *Russian Wealth* for 1898, nos. 6 and 7. The author of the article was the emigrant Kh. Zhitlovskii, one of the future founders of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party. The article is written by an opponent of dialectics, but a muddled one and one who has no real understanding of dialectics. The author, bowing before Marx and striving to strike down Engels, takes as self-evident the proposition that "all factual proofs by which the dialectician thinks to support his principles fall to dust the moment you subject them to a deeper logical analysis." Therefore, he does not trouble himself to prove the unsoundness of dialectics, believing that this will be done for him by a certain retired German general, more famous for his philosophical exploits—E. Hartmann (Hartmann wrote an entire book in refutation of dialectics, *Ueber die dialektische Methode*—*On the Dialectical Method*) and merely tries to get to "the disclosure... of the philosophical presuppositions and influences which in their totality led to the dialectical method." As a result of such a "disclosure," the author reveals "the backward aspects of Kant's teaching which the dialecticians made use of." And after such a remarkable "disclosure" declares that dialectics is incompatible with materialism.

In the same 1898, in the August issue, *Scientific Review* responded to the article by N. G. with a short note in the "Literary Review" (pp. 1449–1452). One may think it was written by the editor of this journal, M. Filippov.

⁵) The author of *Contributions to the History of Materialism* (*Очерки по истории материализма*) is G. V. Plekhanov. The descriptive expression is used for censorship reasons.

⁶) Lenin has in mind the polemic between Bulgakov and Struve that began around the book published in 1896 by the German professor-Kantian Stammler: *Wirtschaft und Recht nach der materialistischen Geschichtauffassung* (there is also a Russian version: R. Stammler. *Economy and Law from the Standpoint of the Materialist Conception of History*).

The dispute between Bulgakov and Struve was conducted in the plane of recognizing the necessity for a Marxist to accept the fundamental premises of Kant's philosophy and revolved around particular questions of this philosophy. Both of them in Kant's "criticism" saw true philosophical revelation, while treating Marx-Engels materialism as backward metaphysics. Vladimir Ilyich's negative attitude toward G. V. Plekhanov's silence regarding the articles of Struve and Bulgakov was reflected even more clearly than in this letter in his letter to Potresov of June 28, 1899. (See note 18 to that letter.) See the articles of Struve and Bulgakov in *Questions of Philosophy and Psychology*, 1896, book V (35)—Bulgakov—"On the Regularity of Social Phenomena"; 1897, I (37)—Struve—"Freedom and Necessity"; *New Word*, 1897, May, book 8: Bulgakov—"The Law of Causality and Human Freedom"; Struve—"More on Freedom and Necessity." Bulgakov reprinted both his articles in the collection: *From Marxism to Idealism*, St. Petersburg, 1903. Struve, however, only the first in his collection of articles: *On Various Themes*, St. Petersburg, 1902.

⁷) The reference is to G. Plekhanov's article: "Bernstein and Materialism" (*Neue Zeit*, no. 44, July 1898). Not receiving *Neue Zeit* in Siberia, Vladimir Ilyich learned of these articles from correspondence, perhaps from previous letters of A. N. Potresov. The journal *Neue Zeit* (in Russian *Novoe Vremya*—*New Time*) was the theoretical organ of German social-democracy, in which at that time the most prominent theoreticians of Marxism contributed.

⁸) G. Plekhanov's article: "On the Sixtieth Anniversary of Hegel's Death," *Neue Zeit*, 1891, vol. IX. In Lenin's text it is stated "30th anniversary"—apparently a slip.

⁹) Article by M. Ratner: "Concerning the New Edition of the First Volume of *Capital*" in no. 7 of *Russian Wealth* for 1898.

¹⁰) Vladimir Ilyich has in mind the articles by P. Axelrod that appeared in nos. 30 and 31 of *Neue Zeit* for April 1898 under the title: "Die historische Berechtigung der russischen Sozialdemokratie" and were later printed in Russian under the title: "The Historical Justification and Mutual Relations of Liberal and Socialist Democracy in Russia" (Geneva, 1898). Lenin did not have P. Axelrod's articles themselves at this moment and judged them by A. Potresov's exposition in one of the latter's letters that has not come down to us. Having received these articles (probably they were forwarded to him again by A. Potresov: in his letter of April 27, 1899, Lenin informs the latter of the return of *Die historische Berechtigung*, i.e., precisely these articles of P. Axelrod), Lenin expressed himself in detail about them in his next letter to A. Potresov of January 26, 1899.

¹¹) "On the danger of einer politischen Isolierung des russischen Proletariats"—"on the danger of political isolation of the Russian proletariat." This idea was expressed by P. B. Axelrod in his pamphlet: "On the Question of the Contemporary Tasks and Tactics of Russian Social-Democrats," pub. "Union of Russian Social-Democrats," Geneva, 1898. See, for example, the following passage: "...the actual state of affairs is far from condemning our industrial proletariat to social-political isolation. And thank goodness that it does not. Having only recently begun to separate itself from the enserfed to the state, poorly cultured peasantry, it is still, in the mass, too deeply immersed in universal barbarism and ignorance to be able—in the grip of absolutism—to rise completely independently, without any external support, to the height of a conscious revolutionary force. Even fewer chances would our 'revolutionary workers' party' have of growing and energetically manifesting itself in life, if it were forced already at the present low stage of the intellectual and cultural development of the people's masses in Russia, on the soil of an autocratic-police state, to wage struggle against *all* bourgeois and petty-bourgeois classes, as against 'one continuous reactionary mass.' And meanwhile, the Marxist youth of the 1880s seemed to have completely failed to recognize the significance of these factors and saw the sole guarantee of the success of our social-democratic movement in the numerical growth of the factory-plant proletariat. This point of view could somehow get along with purely propagandist activity in small circles of selected units of the working class. But it becomes incompatible with organizational and agitational activity among the masses." Pp. 15–16.

¹²) *Gauches*—the Left.

¹³) Alliancist from *alliance*—union.

¹⁴) An allusion to heated debates between Marxists and Populists that were raging at that time in colonies of exiles. Probably A. N. Potresov in his letter described one of such clashes among the exiles of Vyatka Province.